Pedal Power: The Best Way to Save Gas?

Thanks, Mr. Welsh, for the encouraging piece! Although we found the car indispensable when we lived in a small town, I commute by bike and my wife by bus now that we live in the city. It's great to park right in front of the office. It's nearly as fast as driving for trips of a mile or two, due to the timing of the lights. The best part is that I can skip the gym, eat like a normal person, and not pay for a second car. The car is great for shopping, taking the kids to swim, or whatever, but the bike is cheap fun and transportation rolled into one.

2:15 pm May 8, 2011

Andrew wrote :

Thanks, Jonathan; I’m with you all the way. I commute to work by bicycle almost every day, about 6,000 km / year, in Coastal North Carolina. I’m primarily concerned about what happens to humanity as a whole, as gasoline becomes more difficult to extract from the ground, although no one can pin down how fast that will happen, nor do we know whether we’ll soon have substitutes for oil, in all its many uses. Thanks for reminding everybody of the joys of pedal power.

2:53 pm May 8, 2011

Roger wrote :

Some of the best infrastructure investments we can make are bike paths to connect residents with local businesses and activities.

3:01 pm May 8, 2011

Joel Fulton wrote :

I commute to work by bicycle. I'm just not as self-righteous as you about it. Come to think of it, I will be a little self-righteous and point out that an apparently inexperienced rider with cheap equipment herding small children through traffic sounds to me like negligence, certainly not something to be bragging about.

5:46 pm May 8, 2011

Robert wrote :

I am all for using bicycles as long as they are safe on the highways. But let's stop to reflect on why this is happening so much now. We are being forced to use the methods of transportation used by the Chinese while they are upgrading to small cars. It's called redistribution of wealth. Our government is of course involved, and the Federal Reserve policy to keep the value of the dollar low has caused the price of gasoline to skyrocket.

6:01 pm May 8, 2011

Will duRANT IV wrote :

RE: 2:53 pm May 8, 2011 Roger wrote: .Some of the best infrastructure investments we can make are bike paths to connect residents with local businesses and activities.

Who's "WE?" Drivers of cars and trucks certainly don't want to pay for such "infrastructure," especially with so much of what we -- drivers -- have paid via fuel taxes already diverted to mass transit and bike studies, bike lanes, and more.

WILL duRANT IV reminds you that it's time to Restore America's National Territory, Tongue, Traditions & Testosterone.

.

6:43 pm May 8, 2011

gaalleycat wrote :

Biking is a viable transportation method in our area unless you want to die. Drivers in metro-Atlanta will run you over. I bike only off road for recreation and fitness only.

7:36 pm May 8, 2011

walter wrote :

Ever been to Central Station in Amsterdam? You'll see hundred and hundreds of bicycles of people who are taking the train. We could learn from that.

7:58 pm May 8, 2011

Sam Wilson wrote :

Thanks for your article, very encouraging. However sad to say that most of infrastructure in America is not pedestrian or bike friendly and is just waiting for a mishap which can be really dangerous.

8:11 pm May 8, 2011

Robert Robertson wrote :

I agree with this article. Living in California it is disappointing to see a lack of genuine infrastructure for bicyclist and pedestrian's. There is a bike path from Corona to the ocean that gets a lot of use but, there should be more paved bicycle and pedestrian venues than what is available today. Most motorist in southern California have no regard for pedestrian's or cyclist. We complain about the cost of fuel but when I witness young adults barreling down the interstate at 80+ mph in their lifted trucks which probably average 8 to 10 mpg. Gasoline must still be a bargain.

9:05 pm May 8, 2011

Howard wrote :

@ Joel 3:01 - There is nothing negligent about putting your child on a Schwinn, and one does not have to pay more money to get a safe bike. He may have bought one of the heaviest bikes on the planet, but once you put the child on there, who cares? We also have no idea what the roads he is riding look like. Sounds fine to me. Great article. I have spent years commuting and erranding this way, and have added a motorcycle since I moved to the 'burbs for slightly longer trips. The nicest thing? Getting back into the CTS V Wagon is that much sweeter! I doubt if I would ever have bought that car, if I didn't live my life this way.

9:39 pm May 8, 2011

JJ Gildersneeze wrote :

Will DuRant is perfectly incorrect. If anything, automobiles are the ones being subsidized. The issue is that you cannot build your way out of traffic congestion, and you cannot continue escalating the use of nonrenewable polluting fuels.

Increasing the percentage of trips made by bike by diverting a tiny fraction of transportation dollars into bicycling infrastructure not only makes economic sense, it's essential to our nation's survival.

12:23 am May 9, 2011

power to the pedals wrote :

i wonder about bicycle fatality/injury rates compared to those with automobiles. i love my bike. but i know of some who have been killed/injured after they were hit by a car. on the other hand, i also know many who have been killed/injured in one or multiple car crashes and from motorcycles.

i also wonder about who pays more taxes and receives more subsidies: bicycle users or automobile users.

in any case, bicycle lovers need to vote at the city/county/state level to get better transportation infrastructure and safety. talk is cheap; votes, other actions and money are more effective.

12:29 am May 9, 2011

Anonymous wrote :

Until Sierra Club meetings are open to only those who bike to the meeting, we're not taking any of this seriously.

In general terms, consider that
- Bicycles put a tiny fraction of the wear-and-tear on our roads that automobiles do, therefore are significantly cheaper in ongoing maintenance costs to the taxpayers.
- Direct costs that are specific to motorists --such as vehicle registration fees and gas taxes --are a small part of federal and state spending on roads. Much more of those costs are borne by the general fund, which we all pay into in income, property and sales taxes.
- The burden of pollution and poorer health are externalities that automobile use passes onto society. If these things are quantified, they represent costs to all of us that automobiles create and bicycles do not.
- The federal government maintains a massive worldwide military presence, largely to ensure the free flow of oil.

You may or may not choose to credit these factors, but it's undeniable that in the aggregate the small amount spent to increase bicycling capacity and safety is the best bang for the buck we as taxpayers can get for our transportation spending. Growth in roadway infrastructure cannot possibly keep pace with population growth, so longterm strategies to help encourage some portion of commuters to use alternatives to automobiles are a necessity.

7:48 am May 9, 2011

project home builders wrote :

Ever been to Central Station in Amsterdam? You’ll see hundred and hundreds of bicycles of people who are taking the train. We could learn from that.

9:19 am May 9, 2011

sue wrote :

If only we had thought of this years ago! Right? Duh. Let's face it, while this may be viable for those in moderate climates or close to work, the majority of Americans would find it next to impossible logistically or time wise to commute by bike. Plus, we do need separate paths for bikes and pedestrians. Why engineers never thought of this possibility is beyond me.

10:00 am May 9, 2011

Susie Kunsler wrote :

The oil and battery industries spend tens of millions of dollars per year on disinformation campaigns and fake pundits/shills to discredit hydrogen because it beats their products on every metric.

The waste product from hydrogen is potable water, the waste product from oil is cancer. (Oil is the root cause of cancer. ) It is worth anything to end Cancer so any arguement against hydrogen is offset by this fact alone. The waste product from batteries is Lithium poisoning and EMF caused cancer (The GM- EV1 was destroyed because of the EMF cancer risk).

Hydrogen can now be efficiently made from water and the competing interests can't control water so that want H2 stopped.

The more batteries you add to an electric car, the less far it goes. Hydrogen carries more energy at less weight than any battery.

Detroit has a deal with the oil companies to make money by using oil. Big oil does not want Detroit using H2. Big Oil controls the U.S. DOE and orders them to delay hydrogen.

For every negative you could get a shill to make-up about hydrogen, there are thousands of technical papers that disprove it. For every negative that you hear about oil and batteries there are hundreds of thousands of technical papers that prove it.

The gulf coast will now experience a doubling of cancer rates within 10 years, essentially killing off the deep south because of the BP Oil spill.

Hydrogen runs the sun and that seems to work pretty well.

The US DOE is owned and controlled by the Oil Industry.

12:59 pm May 9, 2011

Me wrote :

Susie Q, calm your pantyless, unshaven nether regions. Hydrogen is a conduit, not a source of energy moe ron. Oil, coal, natural gas is a source. They come naturally in large quantities from the earth. Hydrogen does not. It needs to be produced. And inefficiently. It costs more energy to produce hydrogen than that same quantity of hydrogen can output. That's cost-negative.

Before you lecture about science classes and the sources of fuel, you might check out a few recent scientific breakthroughs yourself. Hydrogen can now be produced from solar input using a cobalt catalyst affixed to a silicon wafer. Hydrogen can be burned using a variety of new catalysts (check out the CFeCo one).

As a result, hydrogen now has all of the pluses Susie mentioned as well as the added bonuses of being relatively untethered to other energy sources (oil).

Also, it costs more energy to pull oil out of the ground, distill it into the particular components that we're interested, transport it, store it, and then burn it than it takes to make it. The only difference is that it was made a long time ago (and in a finite quantity).

1:54 pm May 9, 2011

Alecto wrote :

@ willl duRANT - you set up a false choice. I am a bike commuter (50 miles roundtrip, at least twice weekly) and I also have a car, I pay the same gas and other vehicle related taxes (including personal property tax). What point is it you want to make, exactly? I have met 1 person who commuted but did not own a car. Bike commuters actually pay more than our "fair share". If you look at most bike paths, they're redesigned, no longer used railroad rights of way. And, if most motorists were not texting, making phone calls, eating, putting on make-up or watching anything and everything but the road, I'd feel perfectly safe riding in to work on them (saving me about 10 miles roundtrip). Police in my neck of the woods do not enforce traffic laws where cyclists are hurt by motorists unless there is a fatality - then they usually find some way to blame the dead cyclist. Even the most egregious drunk driver gets off with little more than a slap on the wrist or probation after killing a cyclist because of the prejudices against us by law enforcement. It's not a stretch why cops tell people if they want to get away with murder, don't use a gun, use a car.

Next time get the facts straight.

1:59 pm May 9, 2011

Dave Buell wrote :

After 2 near accidents with automobiles I am leary to move my child on a bike.

2:53 pm May 9, 2011

Two-Wheel Freedom wrote :

i was lucky enough to be able to commute by bike when living in San Diego and Seattle. In San Diego the commute was entirely on city streets whereas in Seattle it was about half city streets and half bike path. Whenever I was on city streets or the bike path intersected with city streets I had to be doubly alert for inattentive, rude, discourteous, and sometimes downright pathological killers behind the wheels of cars/trucks. I had numerous "incidents" with vehicles, none of which were my fault and most fortunate for me, none of which resulted in any injury.

Now my commute is 50 miles one way and it's not possible to make on a bicycle, or even a bicycle-public transportation combination, so I'm burning gas on the days I am unable to telecommute.

3:07 pm May 9, 2011

JohnB wrote :

Beware when buying an ultra-cheap bicycle. It might just be stolen.

4:44 pm May 9, 2011

Moe wrote :

What a communist ! Are you trying to abridge my god given right to drive my Tahoe Suburban to fetch the newspaper and coffee in the morning? This would be an insult to the thousand of American soldiers that have given their lives in Iraq and Kuwait to defend that right. What do I pay taxes for? So some lefty tree hugger can tell me to park my pickup and get me oversized butt on a bike. Next thing you will be saying is that I should walk. You know children read this column and what kind of message do you are sending them? What kind of job killing socialist philosophy are you trying to peddle here? It's people like you that are ruining this nation by advocating radical unAmerican ideas such as these. I am aghast. I will immediately write a check to my Legislators and to their PACs to lobby for passing a law to ban any such ridiculous ideas before they can contaminate our country and economy. Don't you know are endangering people's lives. Numerous studies done by the Heritage Foundation and those funded by Koch Industries have shown that pedestrians and bikes fare poorly when they collide with SUVs. The only logical solution if we want our children to be safe is we all go out and purchase an SUV. This way they can grow up big and strong because you never know when they will have to go and fight in some Mideastern country to defend our liberties.

9:35 pm May 9, 2011

Greg wrote :

Bicycling is great but do not use that child seat shown in the photo above. It raises the center of gravity, changes steering response, and a fall from that height, even with a stationary bicycle, can cause brain injury. Wearing a helmet helps but parents often don't cinch the helmets tight enough. If you wish to bring your toddler with you, attach a trailer behind your bicycle.

Add a Comment

Error message

Name

We welcome thoughtful comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs do not require the use of your real name.